As a member of the Student Ambassadors of the Alumni Association, I am writing in response to the recent article regarding the voting process for Homecoming King and Queen (“Voting Process Questioned,” Oct. 28). I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight on the derogatory comments made by Peter Antonellis against the Student Ambassadors.

The Student Ambassadors of the Alumni Association are not as insignificant as some may want to believe. As Student Ambassadors, we promote pride and tradition within the university by participating in campus-wide events such as Homecoming, as well as facilitating a number of our own events that are centered on our mission of uniting students and alumni. We are an organization run by students, for students; thus we appeal to the student body just as much as any other group on campus. For Peter Antonellis to suggest that our organization holds any “close ties and relationships to the faculty, giving us an unfair advantage” in the voting process is utterly appalling. There is absolutely no favoritism in this program, especially on behalf of the Student Ambassadors.

The honor of Homecoming King and Queen is not decided solely by the panel of judges nor by the student vote. It is a 50/50 split that takes several factors into account including an application and interview process that highlights the accomplishments and level of involvement in student activities for each candidate, as well as the opinion of their peers reflected in the student vote.

In addition, each candidate is encouraged at minimum to participate in the following Homecoming court activities: Court TV, Marino Madness and the parade. However, it has also become evident that campaigning to the student body at large plays an increasingly important role in the voting process. It not only brings forth more awareness about Homecoming, but also allows members of the court to gain additional votes outside their respective organizations. Candidates from the Student Ambassadors recognized this early on and were able gain the support of a larger number of students through campaigning.

I feel that it is unfair to discredit our enthusiasm and efforts in pursuing an initiative that ultimately encourages more students to get involved in the annual tradition of Homecoming. After all, as student leaders, isn’t this precisely what we are trying to achieve?

Furthermore, it is not a question of how “well-known” one of the candidates may or may not be around campus, but rather a question of character. Unfortunately, we have all seen that character did not prevail in the recently published article.

Both Jeff Riley and Meagan Longley are undoubtedly deserving of the honor bestowed upon them and it is a shame for anyone to take away from their achievement. When all factors were considered, the winners were announced fair and square. The comments made by Peter Antonellis were clearly rooted in bitterness after two consecutive crown-less years on the Homecoming court. The article was an embarrassment on the part of everyone involved in Homecoming and an otherwise unsubstantiated attack on the administration, the student body, Jeff Riley, Meagan Longley and in particular, the Student Ambassadors.

I commend the efforts of each individual on the Homecoming court for the contributions that they have made to the university. It is my hope that in the coming years, more students will become involved in Homecoming to ensure that more individuals like Meagan and Jeff are elected to represent Northeastern University.

— Colleen Kern is a senior business management and entrepreneurship major. She was 2002 Homecoming Queen, and is a member of the Student Ambassadors of the Alumni Association.